Numerous prophylactics have been presented for patent which cover the length of the tumescent male organ or adhere to the glans of the penis about the urethral opening to seal the urethral opening against foreign bodily fluids and microorganisms. Those prophylactics which cover the length of the tumescent penis interfere with frictional stimulation. Additionally, the device may slip off completely when the penis assumes a flaccid condition after ejaculation. This slippage may result in seminal fluid leaking out of the prophylactic. Another objection to the use of conventional condoms is that their thinness tends to allow them to tear or leak during use, thereby permitting the exchange of bodily fluid between partners. The leakage problem can be diminished by manufacturing the condom of thicker material, but such a method will further lower the level of stimulation afforded the user.
Those prophylactics, known as penile caps or microcondoms, which adhere near the tip of the glans penis, such as U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,421,350, 4,869,269, 4,821,742, 3,677,225 and 5,458,114 significantly reduce the penile glans and shaft surface area deprived of frictional stimulation. Penile caps which adhere only to the glans area immediately surrounding the urethral orifice risk being pulled off completely or partially, either way compromising the biological barrier formed by the adhesive seal encircling the urethral opening. While minimizing bonding surface area is preferrable to maximize frictional stimulation, maximizing bonding surface area is preferrable from a failure prevention perspective.
U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,869,269, 4,821,742, 3,677,225 and 5,458,114 all disclose a microcondom or penile cap which is formed closely to the shape of the glans and seals directly to the area immediately surrounding the urethral opening, thereby reducing the chance for fluid exchange. However, all four of these devices could suffer localized failure of the adhesive seal or be pulled off of the glans during coitus by cyclic tensile forces because of the minimized bonding area.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,869,269 provides a seminal reservoir that is much too large, rigid and projecting for the comfort of the user's partner. Additionally, the design of this structure has poor stiffness against radially applied compressive forces, such as those developed by squeezing together the thumb and forefinger during typical application of the device, presenting the likelihood of collapsing its structure during application and enabling two points diametrically opposed on the adhesive coated surface to contact each other, bond, and render the condom unuseable.
In a similar design, U.S. Pat. No. 5,458,114 offers an adhesive condom which also minimizes the area of the glans deprived of sensation but once again it is designed as a structure which could easily collapse during handling, thus enabling two points diametrically opposed on the adhesive coated surface to contact each other and render the condom unuseable. Additionally, the proposed bladder and bowl pieces of the design are suggested to be bonded together unless they are able to be manufactured as a single unit. Having multiple parts joined together by assembly procedures reduces the reliability of the device and presents the possibility of failure if a bond joint is poorly formed during manufacture or comes apart during use because the geometrically unstable bladder has become wedged between nearby surfaces within the receptive body cavity or instead between the penis and the body cavity after bladder deployment. Furthermore, this design exposes the deployed bladder to a pattern of cuts in the outer envelope which can develop localized areas of high stress in the thin bladder material again presenting the opportunity to tear the bladder material if it were to become wedged and pulled. Such a tear would completely defeat the purpose of the contraceptive prophylactic.
U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,821,742 and 3,677,225 are similar in design and are designed to adhere only to the area immediately surrounding the urethral orifice, or meatus, and are prone to failure due to the very small surface area adhered to the glans of the penis which must oppose cyclic tensile and shear forces encountered during coitus. Additionally, no mounting tool is described as being used with the invention of U.S. Pat. No. 4,821,742 and the flimsy nature of the base portion of the invention invites the opportunity for the user to collapse and bond the adhesive surfaces of the base portion together rendering the device unapplicable or unintentionally leave a crease in the base material during application which subsequently becomes a leakage path for ejaculate. While U.S. Pat. No. 3,677,225 does describe a tool for applying the prophylactic, the tool is in two separate halves which offers the unsteady user the unintentional opportunity to apply the device with leakage paths in the form of creases or wrinkles in the prophylactic material as it is bonded down.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,421,350 discloses a micro-condom or penile cap which covers the glans rather than the greater part of the penis. Although the device is designed toward increased user stimulaton, its coverage of the entire glans limits frictional stimulation around the most sensitive part of the penis. Additionally, the design of this structure has poor stiffness against radially applied compressive forces, such as those developed by squeezing together the thumb and forefinger during typical application of the device, presenting the likelihood of collapsing its structure during application and enabling two points diametrically opposed on the adhesive coated surface to contact each other, bond, and render the condom unuseable.
The proposed invention resembles a penile cap in the fact that it adheres to the tip of the glans of the penis to form a leakproof seal around the urethral orifice. However, unlike other penile caps, the proposed invention has integrally attached, adhesive-coated strips for handling and force distribution which lie adhered along the surface of the glans. These strips serve to oppose tensile forces acting on the perimeter of the adhered area and in doing so prevent the possible failure of the adhesive seal which is a probable scenario in other designs because of cyclical tensile loading. The strips only cover small landings on the glans surface leaving the rest of the glans surface area, especially the highly sensitive coronal ridge, exposed to unimpeded frictional stimulation offering improvement over rolldown, full length prophylactics. The force distribution strips disperse the tensile load acting on the penile cap without overly depriving the user of frictional stimulation to the major surface area of the glans. In addition to the force distribution strips, the proposed invention also has a fluid absorbing means in the bladder portion of the invention to absorb and contain male urethral discharge which significantly increases the probability of maintaining a functional adhesive seal. The bonding of the prophylactic to the user is achieved in a two part process. In the first phase the user applies a liquid adhesive to the skin of the glans and penile shaft in areas which the prophylactic will be bonded. In the second phase adhesive preapplied to selected surfaces on the prophylactic is exposed and mated to the cured adhesive coating on the skin, forming the bondline between the glans skin and the prophylactic. After usage the bondline is broken by applying a hypo-allergenic solvent means of removal known in the art which dissolves the liquid adhesive means of attachment dried on the skin. The proposed invention is also contoured to the shape of the tumescent glans during application by using a membrane tensioning means which holds the substantially annular surface of the device in a taut condition so that it can be stretched out over the contour of the glans penis during bonding.